Dear Editor,
Guyana is passing through a moment that calls for wisdom and statesmanship on critical policy issues.
First, after the learned Speaker has ruled on a matter and the clerk of the assembly has recorded it, is it wise to place the Speaker in a position where he is called upon to go back on his ruling at a time of great contestation? If there is a legal challenge to the ruling of the Speaker take it to the high court for a ruling. One should not bring the position of Speaker into the political fray.
Second, there is an issue of legal policy. Ever since its establishment, the Guyana Court of Appeal, starting out under the leadership of the great J.O.F. Haynes, established a jurisprudence according to which it would make rulings that accord with the best interests of the Guyanese people. I documented this in my book on the Guyana Court of Appeal.
The current situation is one that calls for such wise jurisprudence. First, there is the issue of dual nationality. Is it really wise policy to shut out persons who, for one reason or another, have obtained the nationality of another country? This is a practice well known in the Commonwealth. Will Guyana shut out such persons from serving the country?
What should be the legal test here? Before precluding a person from public office should the legal standard not be whether the person has actively taken positions against the best interest of Guyana? If a person has been in the parliament for some three years and has acted in good faith in the best interests of Guyana, how can we turn around and say that the person is disqualified on ground of dual nationality? In that event, how about the validity of all the previous votes in which the person has participated? Would all government legislation so passed now be invalid? This would be a patently absurd conclusion.
Then there is the vital issue of the majority required for a no-confidence vote. This is a matter that calls for Guyanese jurisprudence, pure and simple. The voter understands that in a parliament of 65 members, a majority is 33. This is plain arithmetic. The courts must similarly recognize this.
Guyana does not have half-persons. It has flesh and blood living persons -whole persons. Even if one were to entertain the far-fetched reasoning of those who argue for such half-persons, what would be the rationale in saying that since half of parliament is 62 1/2, a half of parliament must be scaled up to 63. Why should it not be scaled down, rounded off to 62? One can see that basic good sense is lacking here.
At the end of the day, we are left with the flesh and blood individuals who voted in parliament and, by any standard of counting, 33 is one more than 32. It would defy credulity for the courts to hold otherwise.
The matters at issue need to be seen in the context of Guyana’s quest for nation-building. History will surely judge harshly those who fail to understand that they have a duty to desist from stances that can split the nation apart – from whichever political formation they come.
I am confident that the great Haynes would have recognized that 33 is one more than 32. Pure and simple.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Bertrand Ramcharan
